Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5113394" data-attributes="member: 4892">I only quote the two above posts because they help illustrate one point I would like to make first. I believe the &quot;Magic Item Christmas Tree&quot; definition has incorrectly come to mean &quot;Too Many Magic Items.&quot; Before the term came into being there was a scale ranging from No Magic -&gt; Low Magic -&gt; High Magic -&gt; &quot;Monty Haul.&quot; Debates on the &quot;right&quot; place to be on the scale have raged through all of us, including the very creators of the game.The &quot;Magic Item Christmas Tree&quot; was, as I understand it, the defintion of a phenomenon particular to the inception of 3E D&amp;D. Plussed weapons, armors, shields, rings of protection, amulets of natural armor, and an array of stat boosters came to dominate the character sheet over all other types of magic items. The majority, if not all, of the character's magic item slots were filled with items that made them more effective in combat (mostly). And later rules allowed you to convert that belt of giant strength into a hat of giant strength for a little extra cost so you could get the most &quot;usefulness&quot; out of your magic item slots. Why take a more flavorful item (e.g. a hat of disguise) or a more conditional item (even if it &quot;popped&quot; bigger than a flat bonus), when you could fill your magic item slots with more consistent bonuses to those important stats? Obviously this phenomenon didn't happen to everybody, but enough people experienced it for it to earn its own name.4E promised to lessen this phenomenon. The solution was to originally create only three slots that could be filled with mundane statistical bonuses, leaving the remaining slots for more &quot;fun&quot; magic items. I think this only partially addressed the phenomenon and later works (AV) worked against this principle.Edit: Although another development of inherent bonuses may improve this further. I've yet to explore those enough to know how that could effect player choice.That being said, I do not like the Christmas Tree Effect as I've described it above and agree with Dice4Hire and others that I would like to see magic items with &quot;interesting histories and powers, that augment the character, that make the character more unique, rather than be necessary for the character to survive and prosper in their adventures.&quot; The exact number of magic items matters less, but ingrown in the desire for uniqueness is a desire for less than more. The &quot;more&quot; aspect is better covered in my opinion by having magic items that grow in strength and number of powers a la Earthdawn's threaded magic items. I think 4E Artifacts could fit the bill very well if someone were to put more effort into using them as the sole basis for magic items in a D&amp;D campaign, whether officially or fan-created (edit: probably best in conjunction with inherent bonuses).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vyvyan Basterd, post: 5113394, member: 4892"] I only quote the two above posts because they help illustrate one point I would like to make first. I believe the "Magic Item Christmas Tree" definition has incorrectly come to mean "Too Many Magic Items." Before the term came into being there was a scale ranging from No Magic -> Low Magic -> High Magic -> "Monty Haul." Debates on the "right" place to be on the scale have raged through all of us, including the very creators of the game. The "Magic Item Christmas Tree" was, as I understand it, the defintion of a phenomenon particular to the inception of 3E D&D. Plussed weapons, armors, shields, rings of protection, amulets of natural armor, and an array of stat boosters came to dominate the character sheet over all other types of magic items. The majority, if not all, of the character's magic item slots were filled with items that made them more effective in combat (mostly). And later rules allowed you to convert that belt of giant strength into a hat of giant strength for a little extra cost so you could get the most "usefulness" out of your magic item slots. Why take a more flavorful item (e.g. a hat of disguise) or a more conditional item (even if it "popped" bigger than a flat bonus), when you could fill your magic item slots with more consistent bonuses to those important stats? Obviously this phenomenon didn't happen to [I]everybody[/I], but enough people experienced it for it to earn its own name. 4E promised to [I]lessen[/I] this phenomenon. The solution was to originally create only three slots that could be filled with mundane statistical bonuses, leaving the remaining slots for more "fun" magic items. I think this only partially addressed the phenomenon and later works (AV) worked against this principle. Edit: Although another development of inherent bonuses may improve this further. I've yet to explore those enough to know how that could effect player choice. That being said, I do not like the [I]Christmas Tree Effect[/I] as I've described it above and agree with Dice4Hire and others that I would like to see magic items with "interesting histories and powers, that augment the character, that make the character more unique, rather than be necessary for the character to survive and prosper in their adventures." The exact number of magic items matters less, but ingrown in the desire for uniqueness is a desire for less than more. The "more" aspect is better covered in my opinion by having magic items that grow in strength and number of powers a la Earthdawn's threaded magic items. I think 4E Artifacts could fit the bill very well if someone were to put more effort into using them as the sole basis for magic items in a D&D campaign, whether officially or fan-created (edit: probably best in conjunction with inherent bonuses). [/QUOTE]

Verification